Dr Bart Ehrman Destroys The Crucifixion and The Resurrection History

[@ThePapawhisky]

The rigors of scholastic study applied to desert myths. It’s only needed because there are so many who, with no evidence and no rational argument cling to the myths as true. The myths could be beautiful and helpful, as the Greek myths are, but the mindless attempt to turn them into TRUTH, makes them shameful.

[@boblozaintherealworld3577]

Going back to our 'cave' days actually. As far as my huge mind can believe, anyways. So yeah, in agreement with you. Thanks.

[@ubermenchlicheman]

@ThePapawhisky As hard as you try, you can't prove that the matters of faith are not true. Your rational mind, therefore, comes to its inevitable conclusion. That you are right, and a couple thousand years of steadfast faith must, therefore, be in error. Shameful indeed!

[@boblozaintherealworld3577]

@@ubermenchlicheman Nor can they be proven to be true either. In my opinion, based on others' opinions, a Belief is something I think is true yet cannot prove. Nor can anyone decisively prove it is not. Devout Jews have held their faith for five thousand years. Devout Muslims for 1400 years. Not to mention all those in the millennia lost. I truly admire devotion and adherence in general for all who do believe. However, and no disrespect to you personally, I have heard this "no matter how hard you try" argument more than a few times, and it simply smacks of religious intolerance. IMO, your 'logical' assertion is flawed in that it presupposes the mere reality of 2000 years of Christian Belief completely and irrevocably disproves ALL others. That assumption is yet unproven. My question is: why does it offend your religious sense when someone states an opinion opposed to yours? Is your faith that weak? I suggest you stop trying to PROVE your faith and just get on with your life. Seriously, friend. No one is trying to make you think differently. Have a Happy and Holy Christmas.

[@zawunc]

No, the fallacy is not believing myths are true, but that they are historically accurate. If someone has that very narrow idea of accounts/texts in the bible needing to have literally happend that way in order to convey truth, you end up in the dead end street of science denial. However, faith doesn‘t have to sacrifice reason, it transcends it.

[@matthewwoodard3117]

@@ubermenchlichemanI can prove Jesus was not the messiah. He didn’t fulfill a single prophecy in the Old Testament. Actually read the prophecies in the Old Testament and it’s very clear.

[@raysparro3937]

Nobody knows who wrote the gospels. I wonder what kind of credibility they would have if they were titled... Some Guy Said, Another Guy Said, A Third Guy Said, and Another Guy Said.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Seems like a professionally written prose masterpiece than any word of mouth rumors.

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

@@raysparro3937 Anyway, all the names, like “Luke, John” it’s all fiction, and bad fiction at that. When you consider all the religious wars, the killing in the name of this rubbish creed, it’s a wonder that people bravely left.

[@RaymondTT]

@@johnmaisonneuve9057 So... Luke and John are fictional names because wars were fought by religious people centuries later? I assume that was not your argument, but what evidence do you have they were not the actual authors?

[@everettmarshall3098]

it's clear who wrote them mr. "speak it into existence" satanic doubt caster.

[@raysparro3937]

@@RaymondTT It's universally accepted by biblical scholars that the gospels were written anonymously and that the names assigned to them were done by the Catholic Church.

[@ophirdog]

The more you look into religion the more ridiculous it becomes.

[@truthorfiction407]

The Dr. never got over the shock of Santa Clause not being real.

[@ophirdog]

@@truthorfiction407 I guess Santa and religion are very similar. One for kids and one for adults.

[@oldgaffer9212]

The evidence of a creator is overwhelming buddy

[@Mamba4.8]

​​@@oldgaffer9212Yes but that has nothing to do with religion. There's 1000s of scriptures and religions all over the world all suggesting there was creation Creator doesn't imply the abrahamic religions are true. It actually makes them look less true. Because the creator in those religions instructs one group of it's creation to brutally slaughter the rest The evidence of a creator doesn't erase anything mentioned in this video either. Religion is man made. Creation isn't

[@ophirdog]

@@oldgaffer9212 You should share that evidence with believers, than religion won't have to rely on faith and belief anymore.

[@DandyD977]

Twenty or forty year gap is not that long for an oral culture. The differences between documents reflect theological perspectives, not lies.

[@michaelgreenfield9090]

Tell something to one person. Hear the same story back one year later from other people and it completely changed. Because everyone coloured it, made nicer or made it worse. That is no wonder, that is how stories go. It is as simple as that !! Don't talk about a forty year gap !

[@neviswarren]

Disproving the Biblical resurrection is like disproving Humpty Dumpty was actual history. What's the big deal? I'm astonished that people make careers debating fairy tales. I gotta get in on this. Seminary here I come.

[@danielpaulson8838]

And always remember, "the Tortoise won because he kept his eye's on God."

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

Did anyone die testifying that Humpty Dumpty was an actual person?

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

I love this from Bart Ehrman because he is such a dangerous and damaging individual to modern day Christians who from my experience lack much of an understanding about any of the contradictions between the accounts. Even when presented with videos like this, they still come up with excuses, in some cases flat out deny it saying he's wrong.

[@cedward5718]

Ehrman got Preparation day wrong. It's the the day before a Sabbath. Passover was not a Sabbath. The day after the Passover was a high Sabbath called Unleavened Bread and it occurred on Wednesday at dusk.

[@BMar-xq9zi]

It’s only one view point. Ehrman is old news, this same rhetoric has been spoken of for the last 2000 years. It’s nothing new under the sun.

[@phillipsugwas]

Bart actually strengthens the case for Christianity.

[@cedward5718]

@phillipsugwas Ehrman keeps reiterating that he is an historian. By definition, supernatural considerations are taboo. He is honest enough to admit he is an atheist. Pretty stupid of him to criticize the Bible. He's outside his lane.

[@Mamba4.8]

​@@cedward5718Supernatural considerations are taboo in all fields of objective research.

[@gybx4094]

I'll follow the ethical teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels regardless of whether he existed or not. We can't prove there was a Buddha, either, but the application of the teachings themselves are what matter.

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

In fact the Buddha was well documented in his own time and there were physical remains after he died, as well other sources confirming his actual existence. There is no such evidence for Jesus.

[@drmaybe7680]

Another factor to consider is that in Classical/Hellenistic Greek culture, low weight was put on telling a story accurate to the facts, and high weight on freely making up 'what seemed likely to be appropriate at the time' (to paraphrase Thucydides, one of the few writers we know who cared in significant measure about relating events as they happened, rather than in the way he thought likely to have the best moral effect on his audience). Witness the many variations in Greek myth, or the contradictions in the character of Socrates as portrayed respectively by Plato and Xenophon. Bottom line: Greeks of the time were simply not reliable witnesses. Their culture raised no sanctions against making stuff up in a good cause, so they did so freely.

[@richardlynch5745]

I thought the Holy Spirit was in me once upon a time however reading the Bible through from beginning to end.... there are many mistakes and differences... after many years struggling with them and coming to the conclusion the Bible is is no more real than the gods of ancient Greece Rome or any other myths. 11:00

[@RaymondTT]

@@richardlynch5745 What mistakes did you find that was large enough to conclude the whole thing is made up myth? I cpuld understand if you left the mainstream idea of inerrancy, but to say the bible is completely based on myth is quite a big leap after simply noticing mistakes.

[@Mamba4.8]

@@RaymondTT You got it backwards. It is quite a big leap and all logic and common sense has to be left at the door to believe any of it at all

[@RaymondTT]

@@Mamba4.8 Why?

[@djgrumpygeezer1194]

The challenge of transcendent experiences is that, by definition, they come from a place beyond our experience and understanding. They are beyond the comprehension of our conditioned mind, but that mind will use what it knows to try to grasp the unknowable. I hope your disillusionment with the Bible didn’t lead to disillusionment or dismissal of what you experienced.

[@DIBBY40]

​@@djgrumpygeezer1194 Good comment. Having had experiences with the Divine both within, and outside of Christianity I can vouch for what you say. It's actually very freeing not to straitjacket the experience within a set of books, and then try to justify the experience by making those books infallible.

[@Figrindan001]

What a refreshing burst of rationality and scholarship the good doctor is! I despaired after the passing of Christopher Hitchens, but no more.

[@huwmorgan8515]

There are four canonical gospels in the New Testament of the Bible: 1. Matthew 2. Mark 3. Luke 4. John These are the gospels recognized by most Christian traditions as authoritative accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Bart rightly points out, these gospels are not as synoptic as is claimed. However, there were many other gospels written in early Christianity that were not included in the New Testament. These are often referred to as apocryphal or non-canonical gospels, and some examples include: The Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Mary The Gospel of Judas The Gospel of Peter The Infancy Gospel of James These non-canonical gospels were excluded from the Bible during the process of canonization, largely because they did not align with the theological perspectives or criteria set by early church leaders. In summary, while there are four canonical gospels, the number of early Christian gospels is much larger.

[@RaymondTT]

@@huwmorgan8515 Calling them christian gospels is a bit imprecise. If "christian" has any meaning anymore, then these gospels do not fall under that category. Mostly they were rejected for having fake names attached, not coming from any credible or known source, being written way too late, not being uaed by any churches, and for radically disagreeing with what the early christians taught. So while it is correct to say they were excluded from the canon, the historical works by Josephus was also excluded. As was the writings of Plato. As was the writings of countless christian church fathers. While some, like "The Shepherd of Hermas" or "2.john" was discussed, none of the gospels you mention were ever considered by any christian to be scripture. The canon had mainly 3 rules. 1. The text must be widely accepted and used as scripture. 2. The text must agree with what the apostles taught. 3. The text must come from an apostle, or someone who followed them. The gnostic gospels fails miserably at all.

[@-danR]

The four canonical gospels are not synoptic. Only the first three are synoptic.

[@davidbrown8763]

And yet these people KNEW Jesus - so obviously they could only have been more reliable.

[@huwmorgan8515]

⁠actually, the gospels written by people who genuinely knew Jesus (Philip, Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Judas) were excluded by the council of Nicea in 325. None of the included gospel writers knew Jesus and Paul only ever met Jesus’s brother James (which rather blows the theory that Mary remained a virgin).

[@RaymondTT]

@huwmorgan8515 Oh no! Not Nicea again! You gotta stop watching cartoons for information! Nicea did not exclude these gospels. They were called out for being frauds much earlier. Nicea did not say anything about the books of the bible at all. The gospels tou mention are also KNOWN forgeries today. There is not a single scholar who think these documents go back to the names put on them. Paul openly says he met James, John and Peter. And yes - Mary was not a virgin her entire life.

[@johnpro2847]

I even change a story when retelling it.. and I was there. But then doubt creeps in as to which version is correct.

[@mike7gerald]

An incident happened 2000 years ago; Jesus walked and taught in Israel. How can it be reported to convince you? Try reading the New Testament with an attentive mind and you may discover what billions of believers have learned.

[@user-bf8ki9tc8j]

@@mike7gerald I've read the bible 11 times. I was once a hardcore christian. That was until I actually started reading it. I read the bible 10 times in 2 years and it turned me into an atheist. How can you overlook that jesus failed in his 2nd coming prophecy in matthew 16:27,28? He said he would return in the lifetimes of his followers. Then another christian says to me no jesus will return in the book of revelation. I say and what will jesus do? He says jesus will return to murder all of the evil people. I said so jesus taught in the new testament about loving everyone and being kind to people. Jesus spoke against murderers saying they all go to hell and now jesus is returning in the book of revelations to be a total hypocrite of his prior teachings? That makes zero sense. LOL The bible has thousands of contradictions in it too. Its a very badly written book. Not to mention there are countless translations of the bible. So which one is correct? Its all a bunch of nonsense and if you claim to be a man of truth than you should face the facts. I had to do it too and it was hard to give up my imaginary christian god. Also just because there are billions of christian believers doesnt make it correct. There are also billions of muslims bro. Maybe you all are just wrong. After all, these are all MAN MADE religions. I could debate you all day long on the bibles major issues. Its a total trainwreck.

[@Kitiwake]

Was there a crucifixion of a man called Jesus was the question. A decrepency in the detail does not disprove the other evidence that His crucifixion did occur.

[@williammillar9776]

@@mike7gerald ...Billions my ass....Oh let me guess....they sent you a list with a billion names on it.....right?

[@Wertbag99]

@@Kitiwake "A decrepency in the detail does not disprove the other evidence that His crucifixion did occur" - Not directly, but it does make us have doubt in the accuracy of the text. If there are errors, contradictions or things that aren't true, then why believe any of the other claims put forward by that same text? We lack any third party accounts of the event, so we have nothing else that can corroborate the stories told.

[@douglascutler1037]

Kinda like that preacher tone . . . except here applied to rational skepticism.

[@kalameet7772]

Crazy how someone can twist verses and claim something and people will believe it instead of reading the actual source is wild to me.

[@Sean-oy8xm]

Bart is the worst nightmare for Theists. An intelligent Biblical scholar.

[@boxelder9147]

Nah, Christopher Hitchens debated circles around him

[@pathfinder1273]

I am a theist. He is not a nightmare for me. I dont believe things without proof or evidence. I accept everything he says here. So you see, the only options are not superstition and denial - it is possible to believe rationally. Too bad you "atheists" give up so easily.

[@petercollins7730]

@@boxelder9147 Bart is a scholar, Christopher was a polemicist. Both superb in their chosen area.

[@petercollins7730]

@@pathfinder1273 It is not possible to 'believe rationally' in the christian god, as people generally present it. It is logically incoherent - any tri-omni god is, for example. But it is possible to believe and live rationally and still believe in christianity. Most christians do just that. I don't speak for all atheists, thankfully, but for me, I try to live rationally and don't need the buffer of god belief. I have not 'given up' anything that I think of value.

[@boxelder9147]

​​@@pathfinder1273blessed are those who do not see and yet believe (or something like that) Maybe Im off, but my understanding of belief is that it exists in the face of unverifiable events. Belief would need to have at least some grey area. So if you dont believe without proof, you never really believed. Again, maybe Im off

[@theserpentshallwin]

If you only study one religion, you'll be hooked for life,, if you study two or more, you'll be done in a couple hours.

[@twodogs91]

trite and thoughtless. why should anyone should discount religious study, the philosophy, spirituality, or morals simply because mulitple belief systems exist?

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

The gospels are the greatest examples of the game of Telephone. What I find so very strange is that court witnesses swear on the bible, but nothing in the bible could ever be used as evidence because of hearsay.

[@kenlott263]

@@michaelbyrnee9584 really? What about the facts that the Bible affirms the first and second laws of thermodynamics and entropy? What about the facts that the Bible teaches that the Earth is circular and that it free floats on nothing? What about the fact that it affirms what Einstein said about the law of relativity thousands of years before Einstein knew it to be a fact? And you were calling the Bible unreliable? I think it is you Michael that is unreliable.

[@michaelbyrnee9584]

@@kenlott263 please provide the chapter and verse of the points you mention. The earth is not circular, so don't bother with that one. My, my, my, I guess my comments regarding the vilest piece of trash in history has gotten your panties all in a bunch. the bible is not just erroneous - it is trash, along with the so-called "god" it so ludicrously describes.

[@Wertbag99]

@@kenlott263 Seems a majority of flat earthers hold their beliefs because of how the bible describes the world. A disk with a dome/firmament above, separating the waters above from those below. It's funny to think they want to take that part literally, but handwave away the wizards, magic, fantasy creatures and dragons. I wonder how many flat earthers are also young earthers? Be an interesting cross over.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

What do you say about the consistent reading of the Greek manuscripts?

[@VMorgenthaler-yp6yz]

Thought experiment: what would our understanding of the US Civil War consist of, if nothing had been written down until 65 years after the fact? After nearly everyone directly involved had passed away?

[@nbenefiel]

We'd be dependent on Gone With the Wind.

[@tazwowe]

65 years after? Paul's letters would all be written before 64 or 65 AD, when he died. Jesus died 30-33 AD ....that's about 30 years. Paul spoke with all of the eye witnesses (apostles) and verified with them, all that he was teaching. Assuming the gospels are written later, only because we don't know if they were already in circulation, the principles of the New Testament are already established at the time of Paul's letters.

[@mattr.1887]

I agree, it may not have been 65 years for some of Paul's letters. But 30 years is still significant. Even one year alone would be time for people to forget, make mistakes, etc. At least some of the gospels were written after most of Paul's letters. So some of that material comes even later.

[@Kitiwake]

That there was a civil war.

[@Kitiwake]

@@tazwowe and Paul was a seriously well educated Jew to boot.

[@thomaskristensen4158]

"When five independent individuals, who have no connection to one another, provide consistent accounts of an event in their own unique words, it adds credibility to their testimonies. This diversity in expression reflects genuine personal experiences rather than rehearsed or coordinated responses. Judges and legal systems often find this type of corroboration more reliable than multiple witnesses telling the exact same story, as uniformity can sometimes suggest collusion or coaching." You just proved the ressurection story. Thank you.

[@BjorckBengt]

Which one? If they are all different they cannot all be true! Sorry, I know you are desperate to believe in myths, but please do not claim there is proof.

[@MerryHoneyBee-xc4tl]

There are a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in those accounts so I don't know why you say their the same story and it's proven.

[@entheogenocide]

It's obvious to anyone who actually read the Bible that Mark was written first. Luke and Matt read it and basically copied the stories. None of them had first hand accounts of Jesus.

[@thomaskristensen4158]

@@entheogenocide Obvious no. More likely (given the discrepencies og personal stuff) it is 4 independent sources who gives an accound about an event they each care deeply about and who they each carefully want to preserve and share to people who already knows and loves the stories.

[@thomaskristensen4158]

They are no written in a vaccum. If their was no reader response the tekst would not survive.

[@joep_kastanjer]

Make sure to watch other speeches by this guy where he says the crucifixion of Jesus is as historical as anything can possibly be. He also has said that the disciples had some sort of experience by which they believed Jesus was resurrected. So whatever they experienced is historical, according to the likes of Ehrman. But Muslims only hear words they like to hear.

[@johnpro2847]

the bible is not a history text book..it is a book of prayers and story telling written to convey a massage of hope.. fictional all the same.Amen

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

Sorry, no hope, just deceit and consider the lies and harm this nonsensical belief nonsense has caused.

[@Yette]

A message of hope? Perhaps go back and read the Old Testament more closely.

[@everettmarshall3098]

you are wrong sir.

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

@ Oh yea, finding about the Jesus myth is quite similar to the Hitler myth. Why believe in falsehoods, not a shred of evidence and when you really look at the claims you have to fall off your chair, it’s all nonsense. Go see a psychiatrist who can help you instead of false beliefs, false history and actually shameful pseudo history.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Maybe the NT is a meassage of hope, the AT is just theocratical propaganda.

[@c1ramfan]

It's a FAITH, which by it's own definition does not limit itself to scientific or historical analysis. Where I turn away from Christianity is that it should NOT be in a place of political or military power. After all, it's a faith.

[@desertdenizen6428]

Faith is belief without evidence.

[@c1ramfan]

@@desertdenizen6428 Exactly. it comes byword of mouth, teaching sometimes solidified by personal experience.

[@mike7gerald]

@@desertdenizen6428 Christianity has lots of historical and literal evidence. And today, we have near-death experiences and miraculous healings.

[@c1ramfan]

@mike7gerald may be true but trying to argue on that basis with historians, scientists, and psychology experts leads to meaningless conversations. And it doesn't end there. Eventually it's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It misses the point.

[@mindmelda]

The comment section is Radioactive Apologetics. LOL.

[@robertheintze9413]

AKA "Biblical Manuscript Carbon Dating?"

[@ChannelSRL1]

Here's a rather legal argument: If the forerunners of the Catholic Church were inspired by God to select the correct Gospels to Canonize as the Word of God, then their legacy must also be blessed with the knowledge of God's will. Indeed, it seems as though God desired an authoritative hierarchy to lead the masses. It would therefore be justified to say that you cannot be truly Christian if you are not Catholic. This is because reliance on the Word of God as found in the Bible is founded on the Catholic authority and legacy. In other words, you cannot simultaneously accept the product of their authority and yet reject it going forward.

[@BlakeBake]

The fact that adults still believe that a man resurrected like a zombie still blows my mind.

[@donaldwatson6621]

Do you believe in the Big Bang, dark matter, etc? That the entire universe just popped out of nothing?

[@danielmb01]

@@donaldwatson6621 Science never said universe just popped out of nothing. Science tries to describe how the universe developed, not how it came to existence.

[@victorshikuku4355]

​@danielmb01 you must be new to science... there are several competing theories in science, cosmology, on how the Universe came to be, from nothing, including books published on this very theme, another even titled "A Universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss

[@victorshikuku4355]

What about adults believing that molecules self-assembled in a prebiotic soup then became alive 😂 abiogenesis must be another zombie in our textbooks 😂

[@danielmb01]

@@victorshikuku4355 you don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory...and I am the one new to science.....

[@edzaslow]

Does anybody wonder why the overwhelming majority of the Jews rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and continue to reject him to this day?

[@williamgibbons6375]

Because the Jews expect their messiah to vanquish all their enemies in a single supernatural act. Not someone who shed his blood for the redemption of many.

[@williammillar9776]

It is no wonder to me....

[@Wertbag99]

They often point to the prophecy saying the Messiah would be a great king, would sit on David's throne, would have the weight of the nation on him and would destroy Israel's enemies as obviously not referring to Jesus.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

Because of Rabbinic Judaism that started after Christianity.

[@DIBBY40]

I used to be a Christian. I had spiritual experiences both within, and outside Christianity. The church told me what my experience meant using their doctrines, and the idea of infallible books. It caused me to have emotional investment by defending the indefensible. However leaving Christianity was not the end of spiritual experience. Nothing real is threatened by what Bart is saying. In fact it could be the beginning of a re-evaluation of a faith structure . Painful, but ultimately rewarding. That's my experience anyway. God bless ❤ x

[@TheCrucifixFishTestifies]

Have you ever seen the crucifix fish? It depicts 27 details of the crucifixion including the resurrection. Maybe evolution is responsible.

[@williamgibbons6375]

Tacitus on Christians, "Chrestus" (Christ) and his crucifixion. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. The "extreme" penalty was crucifixion for non-Roman citizens.

[@MathewThomasFET]

Who is lying ❓️🤔 Luke or Ehrman ❓️ Luke 1:1-4. "1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught".

[@sulas548]

You did not add the option that Luke was just sadly mistaken. Do you have any way to demonstrate that he was telling the truth?

[@MathewThomasFET]

@ common logic used in courts today and inferences you draw daily from happenings around you. He says that he has investigated and is quoting eyewitnesses testimony. ‼️

[@sulas548]

@@MathewThomasFET Telling a jury in a modern court that you know someone who witnessed the crime is known as hearsay and is not admissible.

[@victorshikuku4355]

​@@sulas548Saying it's hearsay doesn't mean it is false.

[@sulas548]

​@@victorshikuku4355 You are correct, something is neither true nor false 'until' it demonstrated to be true. It is not possible to prove a negative and assert that an existence claim is 'not' true. My position is that I have not seen any evidence whatsoever for the entire god proposition, including the resurrection, so I will not accept it as true 'until' new information is provided that confirms it is true. If 'you' on the other hade assert that it 'is' true then it is entirely incumbent on you do demonstrate that it is true. If you are unable to do that then the only conclusion is that it is in fact not true. If you have that information I would be delighted to hear it but I think that we both know that you do not have it. If I do not believe because there is no evidence and you believe 'despite' the simple fact that you have no evidence then this can only mean that the reasons you believe have absolutely nothing to do with evidence or objective truth. Any other reason for believing is absolutely no different from all the other religions and your specific god has no more relevance or importance than Thor or Zeus.

[@floofydoofy3418]

proving science is not the same as a journalist witnessing an event and then being able to communicate that event in writing, it is a witness based evidence and not a science experiment

[@kenlott263]

This evil man hasn't destroyed anything at all. The gospels are correct and the resurrection is absolutely true. He will answer to God for his wickedness. If he would spend that much time honoring God and his word as he does trying to lowrate it, He would be of great usefulness to a good amount of people.

[@mattr.1887]

Maybe he just wants to stick to the facts.

[@revbenf6870]

This "evil man" is just an honest scholar using his brain. Stop calling him names and refute the facts he is recounting!

[@Robert-mr4kh]

XD😂

[@rudysimoens570]

Since Jesus is supposed to be BODILY resurrected, I suppose he is still alive and he probably lives somewhere on a planet in a far galaxy since his body can not be dissolved into nothingness unless you believe in fiction and magic of course! So let's call him back and let him perform all his supposed miracles in a lab under scientifically controled circumstances. That would settle the argument forever!

[@dmwallacenz]

Humans don't necessarily believe science that's performed in a lab. Look how many people still think that vaccinations cause autism, despite all the science to the contrary. I can't honestly see how some guy with long hair and sandals showing up at a laboratory and turning water into wine is going to change anybody's beliefs.

[@matthewmangum6320]

Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. He ever readily intercedes for his chosen, against the accusations of Satan towards the Saints.

[@rudysimoens570]

@matthewmangum6320 oh! So your imaginary god lives on a planet in a far galaxy too and so is your imaginary satan! And are you sure that he is at the right hand of the father and not at the left hand? And why isn't Jesus not at the left or right hand of his mother? That's discrimination against women! Anyway, if you believe in magic and fiction EVERYTHING is possible isn't it? But I hope that you realise that it is a sheer geographical and temporal coincidence that you happen to believe in all that supernatural nonsense of christianity! If you were born in Pakistan you would be a muslim. If you were born in India you would be a buddhist or a hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece you would have believed in the existence of the gods Zeus and Apollo. If you were born in the time of the Vikings you would have believed in the existence of the god Thor. It's all about indoctrination from childhood on with all that supernatural nonsense of the specific religion of the parents and the community, social pressure and often oppression, a lack of a PROPER scientific education especially about evolution and cosmology, and often a lack of reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills! It's obvious that you have been brainwashed at a very vulnerable age with all that bronze age man-made supernatural nonsense of christianity and that's why you are no longer able to realize it yourself! Anyway science and especially evolution have already debunked the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of AGES ago! And there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! So it's about time to grow up!

[@robinharwood5044]

@@matthewmangum6320 What does “at the right hand of the father in heaven”. Is Heaven a place with three dimensional space? Does God have hands in the same way that I have hands? If so, then we can understand what happened to the body of Jesus. If not, we still have the problem of what happened to the body.

[@petercollins7730]

@@matthewmangum6320 But your god is always described as existing 'outside of time and space.' That is definitionally nowhere and never. And do you actually believe that your god has hands? Or sits on a throne?

[@didiekong7250]

How foolish human beings are to believe what they hope for and fabricate is the truth...

[@annepoitrineau5650]

Also, you do not have somebody who was there who is able to contradict what is written in the gospels, so the gospels can let rip, link to prophesies, rumours, myths bout earlier prophets etc. The people who are writing have an agenda, and this agenda is not the truth, it is to convince us that theya re telling the truth, which is a comletely different thing.

[@matthewmangum6320]

Prophecy is how GOD shows us puny humans that HE is the “GOD most HIGH.”

[@annepoitrineau5650]

@@matthewmangum6320 This is your opinion, and you are not addressing the core of my point.

[@robertthaller8085]

If it's inspired by God it doesn't matter who wrote it.

[@eddievandriver2273]

Why add the false names Matheww Mark Luke and John if not an attempt tp decieve?

[@petercollins7730]

And what evidence is there that it is inspired by god? Which god?

[@robya.2223]

Various gods inspiring the different versions of the various accounts??

[@joep_kastanjer]

Your unhistorical quran says Jesus was crucified but then adds that Allah did that on purpose, making it only look it was Jesus. So if Ehrman "destroys" the crucifixion, he first destroyed your quran which clearly says someone who looked exactly by Allah like Jesus WAS CRUCIFIED.

[@khusan5951]

You liar Quran never says Jesus crucified nor died

[@joep_kastanjer]

@@khusan5951 You cannot read. I said Allah made it look like Jesus was crucified according to history. Allah did that, history recorded it, so it happened according to history. But 600 years later comes your prophet having heard from an angel that it wasnt really Jesus but Allah's magic trick.

[@MrJohnpro7]

I'm not bothered by what he said since I'm not the one going to hell..

[@petercollins7730]

No one is going to hell - it doesn't exist. You're just wasting your life in constant fear of that mythical place.

[@ernestomolina1361]

Tell it to Elaine Benes

[@georgeholloway3981]

Could you please state the date, location and occasion of this lecture?

[@theNEWTful]

One has to be very naive to even begin to think anything in the Bible actually happened.

[@phillipsugwas]

And vice versa?

[@pathfinder1273]

"The Bible actually happened"?!? What the fuck??? The Bible is not an event, it is a collection of books. And since you have seen a Bible, you therefore know it happened. So you must be really naive.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

​@@pathfinder1273you misquoted , then ranted about your own misquote.

[@MathewThomasFET]

@@theNEWTful Except those visiting the coliseum in Rome who are not so naive 😁

[@MathewThomasFET]

@@pathfinder1273 It is the history of the Jews, Israel. They exist today. How❓

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

if the reliability of the NEW testament is in question, what can we say about the OLD testament, were moses, abraham, etc, real historic persons or just mythical, fictional figures ??

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

Da Bible, THE GOATHERDERS' GUIDE TO ETERNAL SALVATION!!

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@scott4600 You can't scare me with make believe.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@scott4600 If you need religion to be a good moral person then by all means keep it.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@scott4600 Just returning your 'kindness'.

[@jimmiee5491]

A long story short this is all about belief. If you believe in what that book is saying, then you believe. If you do not believe what it is saying, then that's what you believe. Faith is an abstract concept. It's like grasping At the wind, you can't prove one way or the other.

[@mmp64]

If the disciples actively participated in scam, why would they have died for a cause they knew better than anyone else was false?

[@Kitiwake]

no answer to this except they were hypnotised. Such an answer would be laughable if it werent so sacredly serious.

[@Wertbag99]

They would have died for a falsehood that they believed was true. Just like any Muslim suicide bomber is absolutely convinced of a falsehood. Death does not prove truth, only conviction. But if we look at the disciples, the majority of them disappear from history as soon as Jesus dies. Only a couple are claimed to have written anything, and there are no works attributed to the rest of them. The bible only mentions one disciples death, James executed in 44AD, the rest have conflicting reports written decades or centuries later, so its hard to know what really happened to any of them.

[@aharonbaalshem]

And where's the historical evidence that actually happened? Because "Historical Jesus" is said to only had Females by his side at the end. Jews died for their Religion during the Inquisition as did many Pagans. It's not far fetched for people dying for what they believe in. Even today Muslims commit terrorism in the name of Allah. Now I'm a believer of spirit but I don't believe any religion is literally true. It's Metaphors and symbolism to teach us the great mystery of God and how to be one with it

[@kaykw4233]

Scholarly sophisticated lies from B.E is astounding. For instances; comparing Luke and Mark and examine the difference, the differences are purposeful because both authors wrote to specific audiences. There are discrepancies but that does not negate their varsity. So, his sophisticated lies a inspired by the devil. No doubt.

[@tazwowe]

Whats funny is, here is Bart Ehrman making all kinds of blanket statements about what did and didnt happen, and how the story was changed, and who wrote what when....and he's making these statements 2000 years separated from the events, and you believe him, over the statements of people who lived at the time of Jesus. Don't you find that ironic and hypocritical?

[@scottsinger273]

Cmon these people have been around since AND during the time Christ was on the earth! Oh Praise God Almighty for His dear Son!

[@anderskarlsson6045]

What does that have to do with anything? If there are contradictions between different gospels, then some of it must be false.

[@Rose_Ou]

I think people choose to believe because this is their trauma response and the only way to handle reality. I doubt any believer if honest actually believes in the Bible as a whole, well maybe the least intelligent ones, but most people find some kind of a comfort in their faith to deal with otherwise unbearable reality. The older I get the stronger my conviction is that there's absolutely nothing "out there" after we die. Much more mindfulness, understanding of human psychology and acceptance of what is comes with age which is wonderful.

[@xxlionroarxxxxxxxx4438]

Was a Christian for over 50 years until I seen racism from Christians and learning the past horrors of Christianity indoctrinations.Learned Greek,Sumerian and Egyptian mythology and realizing the Bible literally coping it especially the Lord’s Prayer that was a copy from the Egyptian god of creation named PATAH.

[@Bleedingheart07]

I always thought that the whole -God sent his only son to save humanity- is very metaphorical. Sacrifices, human sacrifices, were probably happening among Israelites because of Abraham’s story. Why is there a need for God to send part of himself in human form to save us when God is omnipotent? He could have just said, “You are saved!” There was no need for all the drama that followed, unless Jesus’s story was created to start a movement. I believe the motivation behind it was benevolent, but I am absolutely certain that Christianity ( and other religions) is an impediment to the progress of humanity.

[@RaymondTT]

Illiterate: Peter was illiterate in his youth. That probably why he used a scribe to write. John was illiterate in his youth. He could have learned to write in the 60 years that passed, or he could have used a scribe. Luke was definetly literate since he was a physician. Matthew was plausibly literate since he was a tax collector. Or he could have used a scribe. Using scribes was quite common. Even Paul did it. This is a non-argument. It cannot be used to support his conclusion. Names: Bart confidently states that a later editor put names on the gospels. What is his evidence? Silence. The truth is we dont have any manuscript without the names. But we also dont have a complete first-page before around year 200. So Bart is making conclusion solely based on a lack of information. That is dishonest.

[@IvanAgram]

I watched 1 and a half minute of his passionate speech and couldn't go further. I wonder how on earth did he convinced himself that he is presenting a good case.

[@RaymondTT]

​@@IvanAgram Yup. Terrible arguments all the way through.

[@tdhoward]

He is summarizing lots of information without presenting all the evidence behind it, which leads some people to conclude that there is not much evidence behind it. That would be incorrect.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

The truth is that you don’t even know how to spell “don’t”. Why should anyone listen to you?

[@RaymondTT]

@@tdhoward He is indeed. But when looking at the evidence, you also notice there isnt much evidence either.

[@ts8960]

The historical reliability of the Gospels is dubious, because they describe highly significant events that are not recorded by any outside sources, such as the resurrections of the dead, Herod's massacre, the Roman census, and the Star of the East, to name a few. A meticulous historian like Josephus, who would tell you what Roman governors had for breakfast, did not include a single mention of Herod ordering the massacre of every child, or the absurd Roman census that supposedly required everyone to return to their birth towns. The whimsical Star of the East that maneuvers frantically in the sky would be an unprecedented cosmic anomaly, no mention of it. There are endless ahistorical events in the gospels, I just named 4 I can name 10 more. Funny thing is, that the absurd one like Roman census was a plot device in order to have Jesus fulfill a messianic requirement.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

When the Gospels were written needs to be taken with a grain of salt, you can be certain they picked the earliest time possible for them to be written, it could very well have been way later then what they claim.

[@RaymondTT]

@@liberalinoklahoma1888 From what I have seen, anywhere between year 40 and 90 is plausible for Mark, Matthew and Luke. John perhaps being plausible between 60 and 110. I have still not heard any good arguments for placing them in the latter part of these ranges. The authors show deep familiarity with early 1st century Israel. We have fragments of their writings far away in the early 2nd century.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@RaymondTT The unnamed authors actually show that they are unfamiliar with early Canaan, they were Greek educated and did not write the Gospels in the native tongue, they were probably exiled Jews far removed from Canaan

[@RaymondTT]

@liberalinoklahoma1888 They show great familiarity with the customs, names, geography and rulers of the Israel/palestine/canaan area. There is nothing suggesting they came from elsewhere, or had their sources from elsewhere. If you have examples of unfamiliar statements, feel free to bring them in support of your claim. That the authors are unnamed (I assume you propose that their names are not within the texts?) Does not mean their community did not know who they were. So even if they dont name themselves, their identity would be known by those around them. Native tongue: According to the unanimous christian tradition, Luke was a gentile, so his native tongue would be greek. But he says he got his information from the eye witnesses. Mark is said to be the translator of Peter, so he obviosuly knew greek and wrote in what is plausibly his native tongue. That leaves Matthew and John - who were not greek. They could have used scribes to write or learned greek along the way.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@RaymondTT Such an ignorant response, according to Christian tradition, according to the cops investigating themselves they did nothing wrong, LOL!!

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@RaymondTT Philo of Alexandria was a REAL person that was born 20 years before Jesus supposedly was born and died 20 years after Jesus died, he studied the Jewish bible and visited Jerusalem, wrote about the Messiah Craze and NEVER mention a Jesus Christ or his miracles.

[@jojonorris8047]

Scribes wrote the Gospels.

[@davidstout6051]

Mark’s Gospel (regardless of who wrote it) describes Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. This appellation only makes sense if the two were known to Mark and his audience. Therefore, the story of Jesus’ death is being given by the sons of an eye witness at worst and quite plausibly by Simon himself. In other words, Mark himself might have known not only Alexander and Rufus but their father as well. While I like Ehrman’s stuff for the most part, he is clearly still writing from the perspective of a disillusioned evangelical. And at the core of evangelicalism is the absurd notion that everything about a Bible passage must be historically accurate or else none of it can be historic or trustworthy. To his credit, Ehrman at least acknowledges the existence of Jesus. I also appreciate his recognition that something pretty powerful must have happened to the early Christians for them to proclaim a victim of Roman crucifixion as the Lord of lords and King of kings. Basically Ehrman is simply popularizing stuff that mainline biblical scholars (including his mentor and devout Presbyterian, Bruce Metzger) have known for decades. It hardly destroys the reasonableness of the crucifixion and resurrection, unless of course one is an evangelical or holds to their line of thinking.

[@petercollins7730]

Since you know and I know that "Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus," that proves that we were both eyewitnesses to the resurrection, by your standard. Now, granted, Google had not been invented in 70Ce, but there was common knowledge and, since in the culture descent was important, the fact that an author knew a few facts about tangential people proves nothing. Mark also knew that Jerusalem existed and Herod was a King. Does that prove his account of the resurrection true also?

[@davidstout6051]

@ If heredity were the issue Matthew and Luke would’ve kept that part in their accounts as they did the fact that Simon was from Cyrene. Mark is clearly mentioning the sons because they were known to his audience. This in turn means that Mark’s account of the crucifixion (not resurrection, an event I never mentioned) was based on the witness of either someone who was present at Calvary or his sons. Also, knowing Alexander and Rufus would not have meant Mark or his audience were witnesses to the crucifixion; it meant they knew at least the sons of someone who was. And Simon was hardly a tangential figure. He was a witness. If you want an analogy, I could tell you a few things about what being in WWI was like, not because I was there, but because my dad was and told me a few stories. That would put you in the same position as Mark and his readers. Thus you would have a reliable account of events that took place more than a 100 years ago. In the Gospel’s case the time gap was only 40 years. That is the equivalent of my recounting events from the mid 80’s, something that would be easy to do. In short, there is no historical reason to doubt the basic report of Jesus’ death though Mark has obviously added some things to the whole account of the passion (the internal dialogue Jesus has in Gethsemane, for example).

[@petercollins7730]

@@davidstout6051 It doesn't mean anything regarding the crucifixion. It simply means Mark knew a bit of genealogy. I know that Donald Trump's sons are named Donald, Eric, and Baron. Does that mean I know what Trump did with Jean Carroll? Knowing a banal fact doesn't convey any other knowledge. Sorry, but you are making my point. I can describe for you my experiences being at Woodstock - the mud, the free food, the chaos, the traffic going home, the incredible sets the bands played. But I was never at Woodstock, and I would simply be relating what someone told someone else who told someone else who told me. I'm not a mythicist; I think there actually was a man who is now called jesus, who was born in Galilee, who traveled with a tiny band of camp followers, lectured, annoyed the Romans, and was executed. There is not a lot of good evidence for that, but sufficient, I think, for those banal facts. The problem is, that doesn't help you. Since there is no good evidence for all the supernatural magic things, I don't believe those.

[@davidstout6051]

@ I’m not arguing for the supernatural here. That would be a related, but separate issue. As to knowing Trump’s family, that is a famous family and we live in a world of instant and continuous information. A more apt comparison would be how well you knew of or cared about some average citizen of Houston when you lived in St. Louis. The only thing that would make such information remotely relevant is if you had some personal connection to that individual. Likewise, someone living in Rome or Athens or Antioch ( home of the sacred grenade) would have no interest in the family of some random guy from North Africa unless they personally knew his sons. That is my point. Mark and his audience personally knew the sons of an eyewitness to the crucifixion and it is entirely possible that Mark knew Simon himself even though his audience did not. Ergo, Mark is thereby established as a reliable source regarding Jesus’ death. To use your own example, No you weren’t at Woodstock but if you talked with someone who was there then I would see no reason to doubt your recitation of their experience or that what they had communicated was indeed what had occurred. I would consider you to be a reliable source regarding the famous concert. In like manner, establishing the fact that Mark knew an eyewitness or at least the witness’s sons, means that Mark’s account should be taken seriously by historians at least in terms of non-supernatural events. He is not writing as someone far removed from the life of Jesus but as someone who was part of the Jesus movement in its early days when a few eyewitnesses were probably still alive and, given the still limited size and expansion of the movement, wouldn’t have been that difficult to contact. Rome had good roads and a getting a letter from one place to another was hardly a Herculean task. What’s more, the number of people who had known and heard the Jesus story and stories from Peter, John, the various Jameses and Mary’s, etc. would have been considerable. My beef with Ehrman’s position and voiced by numerous others is that they attempt to put far more distance between the Christians of 70 CE and the life and death of Jesus a mere 40 years later. In fact, anyone with a bit of curiosity and drive could obtain decent information about Jesus and could also get that information cross checked by consulting the numerous individuals who had known the various members of Jesus’ community. Does that mean it would meet the standards of a history of WWII? Of course not, but it does mean the story of Jesus Mark tells is probably reasonably accurate. As you yourself say, and as both Ehrman and I would agree, Jesus was no myth. He was a real figure. Where I differ is in the amount of credible information Mark provides and the availability of quality sources available to him. I would close by saying that I appreciate your willingness to engage on these matters. From this most recent post of yours, I suspect that we might not be so far apart on viewing Jesus from the perspective of historical research even though we would be of different camps regarding the miraculous, if not the existence of God as well. In any case I wish you and yours an enjoyable holiday season.

[@petercollins7730]

@@davidstout6051 Mark listened to stories passed down over 4 decades. Some random details, like the lineage of some person, could easily happen to be in the story. The fact that Mark knew one banal fact does not prove that he had inerrant knowledge of the event. In studies of people who claim to have been at Woodstock, the majority were, in fact, not there. And if you have ever talked to someone who was, their memory of the event is fuzzy and dubious. The unreliability of eyewitness accounts, direct from the eyewitness, is well-known and well-studied. I can provide a personal example, if you like, but looking at the literature would serve you better. And Mark is repeating stories from an unknown number of layers of people between the eyewitness and himself. There is no evidence that Mark knew an eyewitness or the son of an eyewitness. That's just your conjecture. And since he wrote 40 years after the event, it is quite unlikely that he actually received from any eyewitness testimony. I accept that jesus (by whatever name) was a real human; there is sufficient evidence for that. But that doesn't provide any basis for believing that Mark's supernatural claims are true, or even that details of jesus life are true. The bald fact that jesus lived, and lectured, and was executed does not prove that he gave the sermon on the mount or any other specific event. I think we agree that jesus was a real person, with the basic facts I have listed. That seems reasonable and not really open for question, unless some new evidence arises. We would disagree about everything which is supernatural, though. But disagreements are fine - we each have exactly the same right to our beliefs. And I wish for you and yours also a wonderful holiday season. On that we can entirely agree.

[@0nlyThis]

In 1Corinthians 15, Paul claims his Christ “died for our sins according to the scriptures ... was buried ... rose again the third day according to the scriptures”. In historicizing Paul’s mythic scenario for his own reader/audience, the author of the Markan narrative had to arrange for his Jesus to be spared the customary Roman practice of having the bodies of the crucified rot away on their gibbets before being tossed into a mass grave, by having him die within mere hours of being crucified (he even has his Pilate character express surprise about this), the body claimed and entombed (not buried) within hours beyond that - setting the stage for his Jesus, as well, to rise "the third day"

[@labspeciman7402]

Written 50 years after the fact but its accurate. Were the writers even alive 50 years earlier?

[@RaymondTT]

@@labspeciman7402 Plausibly. I dont see why not.

[@labspeciman7402]

@@RaymondTT But why did it take 50 years to write the greatest story ever told? It was made up to control the masses.

[@Mamba4.8]

@@labspeciman7402 That have to still be alive if it's true because they were told they wouldn't taste death

[@labspeciman7402]

@@Mamba4.8 Why wait 50 years,

[@Mamba4.8]

@@labspeciman7402 I was joking saying they're still alive now because they were told they'd see the second coming

[@johanvandijk6058]

I believe in the right to have my faith and not to be hectored by this man. I exercise a choice, something that the world is now witnessing being denied in countries that endeavour to sustain Christianity and its guiding principles.

[@BabyHoolighan]

Hectored? This is an archived video from Dr. Ehrman's youth that you had to voluntarially click on. He is not addressing you or matters of faith. The clip is a discussion about historiography and sources. There are many channels on YT that are faith based and would welcome your support.

[@stevero2581]

Trumper Qanons today. Same kind of crazy spread that crap back then.

[@AUDIOHOSTEM187]

What difference does it make? 😇✝

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Zero contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness accounts of that seminal event. Zero. Yet it's a world-wide religion.

[@DurgaDas96]

Interesting, but I feel like I’m being yelled at.

[@ceedee873]

If the Gospels were written after 70 AD then how come none of them talk about the destruction of the First Temple? This guy has outdated info, he'll start claiming that Christ is based on Dionysus and Horus soon.

[@ThePaulopineda]

Explain your Bible having millions of contradictions. The evidences are right in the Bible. If the Bible was perfect, then he would have accepted it as a surviving miracle by itself. But your Bible's anonymous non-eyewitness authors can't even decide how did Judas die, is that the words of God? The Bible by itself is a blasphemy, claiming a corrupted book came from God who is perfect. The only perfect book, that even this atheist agreed is the Qur'an. The real words of God, free from any errors and contradictions and a book of perfection protected and preserved by God Himself. Qur'an 15:9 It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder, and it is certainly We Who will preserve it. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 Alhamdulillah to the words of God! With a thousand scientific facts not known to Science til just recently, are already in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago. The supposed scientists who never believed in God, converted to Islam having to find out their field of studies were present in a book 1,400 years ago. ---- The Bible? 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census. 1 Chronicles 21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders.

[@johncooney417]

The first temple was destroyed in 586 bc…the second in 70ad. They didn’t mention the second temple because it didn’t fit their narrative.

[@MasonMorgen]

He turns water into wine doesn't he?

[@eatfrenchtoast]

More likely to me the plots of the gospel were written long before and what we are familiar with in the 7th century. The whole time framing is based on monks Bible math 800 years after the fact. The same totally reliable dark ages church industry that brings us witch trials and the crusades.

[@markbremer1813]

Try Matthew 24:2

[@jackhull1778]

Good show.

[@RaymondTT]

Discrepancies Day of death: All four accounts: Jesus died the day after the passover meal was eaten. Also John 19.14: Jesus is crucified on the Day of preparation. John obviously knows Jesus has already eaten the passover meal, so this must be a different preparation. We find easily that this is a friday - the preparation day before the sabbath. There is no discrepancy. Only Bart being as uncharitable and difficult as possible. Time of death: Mark 15.33: ninth hour (3pm) Matthew 27.56: ninth hour (3pm) Luke 23.44: after ninth hour (3pm) John 19.14: Jesus sent to be crucified around the sixth hour (12 noon) This is simply Bart lying about the text. I was confused when trying to find what he quotes. Because he quotes it wrong. He should know better, so I assume it was on purpose. Carry the cross? None of the gospels say he carried it the entire way. John says Jesus "went out bearing his cross". But does not say whether Jesus carried it all the way. Again, Bart is being as uncharitable as possible. Mocking: Perhaps both mocked him at one point, but the one of them stopped. Its a simple explanation. None of the gospels contradict this explanation. Temple curtain: Matthew 27.51 - tears as Jesus dies. Mark 15.27 - tears as Jesus dies. Luke 23.45 - tears right before Jesus dies. If Bart wants to argue that Matthew and Mark says it definetly happened after Jesus died, he might have a hard time. The tearing is mentioned non-chronological in connection to Jesus death. Again, and uncharitable interpretation. So this far Bart has misread verses, inserted assumptions and misunderstood the text. There are simple, reasonable explanations for all of these alleged discrepancies. But, look at the agreement in the text. Even if everything Bart said was accurate, all four gospels agree Jesus was sentenced by Pilate, crucified at Golgatha at passover, mocked by criminals, died at the cross, the temple curtain was torn. The sources are in agreement on every major detail, but Bart wants us to throw out the entire thing as unreliable because Luke appears to change the order of two events that happened almost simultaneously? That is ridiculous. Bart methods are simply dishonest and not motivated by a search after the truth.

[@NYCFenrir]

Carrying the Cross: John 19 16-18 "Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross by himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them." You are just wrong about the cross being carried. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross. John has Jesus carrying the cross the whole way to where he is crucified. You even have a contradiction of when Jesus went out to be crucified. As you said John says noon, but Mark says around 9 o'clock. So that's a clear contradiction. Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour when they crucified him." You just dismissed the contradiction of when the curtain is torn. Before or during his last breath. They are distinctly different. Though they are close in time. Luke 23 45-46: "...and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last." Mark 15:37-38 "Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom." Your "simple explanations" just don't go along with the text. For example: "None of the gospels say he carried it the entire way." I have to call you dishonest because you quote part of the sentence: "went out bearing his cross" when the next part of the same sentence is "he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull" If you are quoting half a sentence with another part of the sentence proves you wrong, I don't know how you call that something different from dishonesty.

[@RaymondTT]

@NYCFenrir Thank you for your response. I did not intend to quote only half of John, but I agree - it is a huge mistake by men to do so. Here might be the full story: Jesus carried the cross, either alone or with someone else, as they went out from the city. There they found Simon who carried the cross, either alone or together with Jesus, all the way to Golgatha. The synoptics does not say Jesus did not carry his cross together with Simon, and John does not say Jesus carried it alone. So all options of how this sequence of events happened - includes all the verses and causes no discrepancy or contradiction. While John may be lacking information, or choosing to not mention it - he does not contradict the synoptics. John does not say "Jesus carried his cross alone all the way." It says the very vague "bearing his own cross." The part "to Golgatha might be connected with either "they took Jesus to Golgatha" or "he went out to Golgatha" or "bearing his cross to Golgatha." While the last causes some tension with the synoptics, the first two options causes no tension at all. Ah, thats where he got the time from. I though he said "Jesus died". Mark 15.25 - it was the third hour when they crucified him. Precisely the third hour would be 9 am. John 19.14 - it was about the sixth hour right before Pilate sentenced Jesus. Precicely the sixth hour would be 12 noon. So how did time work in ancient Israel? Saying "third hour" could refer to anything between 7.30 and 11am (if sunrise was at 6am) likewise the sixth hour could be used to refer to anything between 10.30am and 2pm. Time was not as precise or important during this time. So this is not a end-all discrepancy, since they can be easily resolved. If Jesus was sentenced at 10.30, an ancient jew could refer to that time as either third hour or sixth hour snd not be faulted for it. But to our modern time-keeping ears - John and Mark should probably have been more precise. The tearing of the curtain might be any of the following: The authors didnt intend to put it in chronological order (something they do often), or the tearing took time. I think the latter is dubious, but the first is plausible. Mark didnt want to pause his explanation of Jesus on the cross, so he mentioned the tearing after Jesus death because thats where it fits thematically Matthew is vague and simply says in the past tense that the curtain was torn. Mark is closer to giving a chronological order and Luke is also closer to a chronological order but the greek has "kai /and", but I see many translations use "then" giving the impression of forced chronology. The 'then' is not present in the greek. If Mark and Matthew chose to finish the events of Jesus words and then mention the curtain - or if Lukes "kai" shows tearing AND Jesus last words to be simultaneous, there is no problem here. I can agree that the stories are not exactly the same. I can even agree that they appeat to be in tension. But they are not contradictions. And as I said, even if they were contradictory - all four gospels agree about every important event, but different slightly about the exact order or near-simultaneous events or exactly what time it was during a particular event. That hardly reduces their credibility like Bart confidently asserts. Christians would have to change their theology about inerrancy, which I am readily willing to do if inerrancy is proven wrong.

[@steve_____K307]

Hello RaymondTT, if you are knowledgeable regarding the Christian religion please respond to the following, if you only have a superficial understand of the religion, may I ask that you refrain: During a significant stage in my life I satisfied the qualifications for salvation; to the extent any person might know the qualifications that is. I was all in, fully committed, and as deeply immersed in the fog as any Christian could be. Now, decades later, I have subsequently renounced Christianity and the particular God it depicts. If I might ask -- what does the Bible claim regarding the notion "once saved, always saved"? Is that notion true or false? Am I still "saved"? Can I ask you to forecast my particular destiny as asserted by Christian doctrine? If you need to use words such as "Gnashing", "Weeping", "Burning", "Torment", "Anguish", "Eternal", please do not hold back. Please boldly represent Christianity and tell me (in your own words) the clear truth taught by the Christian God on this specific topic. Maybe it's "Good news for All!" -- from an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Loving, Sovereign Christian God that intentionally created each of us as per His specific design. Regarding this core Christian doctrine (Soteriology) it seems Biblical ambiguity would be extremely odd; especially with the eternal consequences hanging in the balance. I look forward to your answers to the various questions asked, and whatever those answers I trust they are the same clear answers that all Christians might universally offer. Thank you.

[@RaymondTT]

@steve_____K307 It is an excellent question you give. Unfortunately for both of us, there is disagreement among christians. Both sides have good arguments. So sadly, I am not able to give you an answer that all christians will agree with. But, I think almost all will agree about the big question: "What is your future." Those who hold the position of "once saved always saved" might quote verses saying things like "noone can take you from Gods hand. (John 10.29)", "he has predestined. (Romans 8.30)", "nothing can seperate us from his love. (Romans 8.38)" But If you have now actively, willingly and completely abandoned God and your faith - they would probably say that you were never saved in the first place based on verses like 1.john 2.19. So they would place your future in the colorful words you suggested. I think only a minority would say that you are still saved. I think this is the worst option - textually speaking. I find this position weak and I think it is held out of emotional reasons rather than theological ones. I think personally that "once saved always saved" is not true. That you can in fact renounce your faith in such a way that you forfeit your salvation. The main text I would point to is Hebrews 6.4-8 "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned." And from Hebrews 10.26-29. "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?" And from 2.peter 2.20-21 "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” " There are of course counter responses to all of these verses. My position, and what I think the bible teaches, is that you can choose to abandon God, say NO to the salvation offered in Jesus and turn your back to God willingly. God will then reluctantly grant your desire of eternal separation. Exactly how that grim future will be is not clear. Jesus and others use many metaphors and imagery about it, like burning, gnashing, darkness, weeping and so on. But which parts are literal and which parts are imagery is hidden. Regardless, its not where you want to be. It is horrible. It is terrible. It is worse than you can imagine. I hope none if us ever find out how it really is Some clarification. 1. You dont need to do a certain amount of good to remain saved. 2. There is not a limit for how many sins you can do before you lost salvation. 3. If you worry about whether or not you are saved - you are saved. 4. If you intentionally sin at points in your life, even daily - that doesnt mean you are not saved. 5. If you doubt or question God, that doesnt mean you are not saved. 6. Drifting slowly away into a form of apathy towards God doesnt mean you are not saved. I think it requires a very intentional choice to turn away from God. Its not something that happens without your approval or knowledge. So my prediction, that I think many will agree with: You are not saved. But I cannot answer whether or not you were ever saved. Although ultimately unsatisfactory, I hope my answer finds you well. I of course have questions about your life and faith and change, but I will hold them for now.

[@RaymondTT]

@@steve_____K307 I posted a reply, but I think it got so long that it was hidden only in "newest". See if you can find it.

[@gregsayles9253]

This argument doesn't describe Roman account's of Jesus, whom apparently existed through their records of the time--& of course there is the stunning evidence of the Shroud of Turin...

[@raydelavega7457]

They Should've Used, JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, AND RINGO FOR THE GOSPELS!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Jack-il3qv]

Tolerance of opinions not based on the whole truth provides enough entertainment for a lifetime. 😊

[@RaymondTT]

Transmission: Again Bart argues from silence. He says the writers heard the stories from someone who heard the stories etc. How does he know? Early christians across the ancient world are unanimous: the gospels were written by the apostles, and those who followed the apostles and wrote what the apostle said. So Bart argues against ALL the evidence we have. There is zero evidence to support his conclusion which he so confidently preaches. Next he talks about the disciples. He correctly admits that from the time Jesus died, the disciples believed and preached that Jesus had in fact risen from the dead. Bart admits that the story about a resurrection started immediately after Jesus death, and it was started by the disciples who knew Jesus. But Bart says the stories were changed. What evidence does he have? None. All our evidence points to Jesus being crucified, buried and then seen alive after 3 days. But Bart assumes, from silence once again, that BEFORE out earliest written sources, change MUST have taken place. He bases this conclusion on.... nothing.

[@jd190d]

So you either did not watch or did not understand the video and/or do not understand what credible evidence is.

[@RaymondTT]

@jd190d Which part do you disagree with and why? Mostly this comment shows how Bart makes conclusions based on silence. Sometimes that is suitable, but not here.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"(Luke 23:34) If Jesus could forgive those who murdered him, how can he not forgive those who commit the infinitely lesser sin of not believing he is the Son of Godand their savior, instead condemning them to hell (Mark 16:16)?" -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@BeefT-Sq]

@@RaymondTT "...Why should billions upon billions of sinners have to pay for their sins by burning forevermore in hell ? If we are to believe the bible, haven't their sins already been paid for by Jesus." -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@RaymondTT]

​@@BeefT-SqForgiving in luke 23.34 While the text in Luke never says Jesus actually forgave them, he did ask the Father to forgive them. Whether the Father did is unknown. But lets assume He did. I would argue killing Jesus is a pretty major sin. Perhaps so much that Jesus needed to adress it specifically to place it as a forgivable sin and in some sense granting permission for it to be forgiven since Jesus himself was the victim. But it might be that the Father would only forgive it if they repented. - Sin of unbelief Mark 16.16 It is not the sin of not believing that is the problem. It is every other sin we have ever commited. The only way to have ALL of those sins forgiven is through accepting Jesus atoning death in faith. So I agree - not believing is a lesser sin, but it is not that single sin which is the problem, it is the hundreds of thousands of other sins we have done. Billion and billion burning. While Jesus mentions flames as a part of hell, it is rather more likely that he is being metaphorical. Since he also mentions darkness. So burning forever is probably not accurate at all. But, forever is accurate according to Jesus. Weeping and anguish is accurate. Distance from Gods goodness is accurate. Has their sins been paid for by Jesus. In some sense YES. However, if you dont want to receive the forgiveness, God will not force it on you. If you dont want God, he will not force you to be with Him. It is yours and their choice to reject the forgiveness offered freely. C.S. Lewis said something like "the doors of hell are locked from the inside." Indicating that those who have ended up in hell because they refuse to repent from their sins and refuse to accept Gods forgiveness - continue to do so even in hell. I am unsure of how accurate this illustration is, but it might be correct.

[@aaronchandler2380]

it is why it is called "faith" belief without proof is faith.

[@geoffb1418]

Are you listening William Lane Craig. The resurrection myth is just a myth.

[@iansurman2299]

show your proof

[@Kitiwake]

I think the book of John is generally recognised to be a first hand account of the Crucifixion. Too much detail to be made up. As for the argument that it was written 50 or more years after the event, doesnt mean that they were not made up of copious notes of the events of the tme. Years of lecturing and spreading the gospel by verbal and written means would certainly give one a mastery of language, even of a second language. Discrepencies of details between writers of the gospels only strengthen the the scriptural stories.

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

This is simply nonsense. Why are you making things up like this, which completely disagree with all historical records, or a single credible Biblical scholar?

[@joesmith-t2z]

Also. the earilest version of the earliest Gospel (called "mark") ends with an empty tomb.he business about a gardener who was JC in disguise, etc were added centuries later. And Paul never met Jesus.

[@matthewmangum6320]

You are mistaken, Jesus Christ met Paul (at the time, Saul) on the road to Damascus and asked him “Saul why are you persecuting me?” ACTS 9:3-6

[@cherryjuice9946]

@@matthewmangum6320 Sounds more like a hallucination to me. JC was dead already, remember? When someone says they've talked with a ghost, we don't need to take that seriously.

[@disciplemike1]

where is the "destroyed" part? lol, maybe I missed it?

[@timg7627]

Try harder. Perhaps genuinely listen next time 🤷‍♂️

[@disciplemike1]

@@timg7627 I don't have that much time. Can you just put a time stamp at the "destroyed" part? lol

[@timg7627]

@ sit down I have zero patience for christians, like you, who are disingenuous with their approach.

[@whatsup3270]

@@disciplemike1 It is a conspiracy in which, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul all colluded to claim the same thing. Then they do it again with Mary. The funny part is the speaker assumes there was no knowledge until it was written. Or maybe nothing existed before writing, does that make sense. Could people have made wheels or fire before instructions were written.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

@@disciplemike1 All of it.

[@Clive_o]

How does he know they were oral reports initially? Didn't they write books 20 years earlier?

[@Silva912]

Cuz the people weren't literate where Jesus was, they were uneducated peasants

[@dnam16]

I am going to add to my earlier statement that as a Christian I do not disagree with Bart's points. I just don't care because I do not see that as significant issues. I see Bart's points as evidence that supports that they were NOT copied from each other. They were not historical documentaries. Instead, I see Bart's points as evidence that they are real testimonies from individuals with different perspectives. Per oral tradition at the time there probably were some changes in some order of events and may have made minor adjustments to the timelines. Most likely, the named authors were not the ones who wrote down the stories. At the end of his video, he attacks the resurrection and consequently the diety of Jesus, but ultimately that can not be proved or disproved historically. All that being said, I am compelled by his profound and revolutionary statements that advocated for us to love one another as his most important command. If Jesus was not the Christ, then I can not comprehend how his movement did not die with his death, but, instead, spread to the whole world based on the accounts of a Jewish man that came from small village, challenged the religious leaders of the day whose followers denounced him at this death, but later preached the Gospel until their deaths. Nor can I see how an esteemed Jewish leader (Paul/Saul) would turn from prosecuting Christians but give up his position and prestige and advocate for Jesus at the point of being exiled. I understand why non believers reject Jesus. Loving one another can be difficult. The world would be a better place is everyone showed a little more love and compassion.

[@MrLightning20]

First, Love and compassion can be shown irrespective of religious beliefs. Next it seems you are saying people wrote this which is why you get the discrepancies which would be problematic for the gospels being divinely inspired. If they are divinely inspired would you expect many discrepancies or none? If you expect discrepancies, would not that align with the God of confusion narrative? Here’s the issue in a nutshell: God tells a selected few men what to write in a book and they produce contradictory recollections of it for everybody to read. We can’t jump to conclusions that they were not copied because embellishments and changes to stories which are likely can not be ruled out. This is why belief in them cannot be taken on evidence but faith. So to help convince the masses, faith is taught as a virtue but it’s goal is to make belief without of evidence the best thing one can do. This is problematic because you can believe true things and wrong things on faith which makes it unreliable. You mentioned how you can’t comprehend how Jesus’s movement didn’t die with his death as a main reason for belief for you. Well countless amounts of movements that saviors of other religions had did not die with them either and they believe on faith.

[@18dot7]

"I just don't care" So you don't care if what you believe is true. That's pretty sad if you ask me. I would want to be sure what I believe is true. Why would you prefer living a comfortable lie instead of an uncomfortable truth? You see this and that in some old scribble-does it make true what's written? No. How do you assess the truthfulness of claims? Seriously, what method do you use to suss out who is talking nonsense, and who is serving you some truth? How do you tell the difference? I would bet you are already way past the point that you still have some ties with reality-fancy a test? No worries, it is simple. Claim: God created a grown man by breathing onto a clod of clay. Task: Explain what method you use to assess the truthfulness of this claim. The stage is yours...

[@colinriches1519]

If you don't care whether it's true or not.... I bet you'd care if you found out it was a scam. Think about it, the religious leaders are able to micromanage the lives of sheep, siphoning wealth and power from the many to the few.... if you don't care about it, maybe you should.

[@DerekHarding]

@@dnam16 an understandable position. Once you accept that some pieces aren’t true or accurate how are you determining which pieces are true? How much of what Jesus allegedly said and taught is later mythology? Casting the first stone for example is a later alteration/addition.

[@effief7635]

So you believe something without ANY demonstrable evidence. That's a dangerous way to live

[@maskofsorrow]

Having copies that date back to those times you mention, doesn't mean they were the original writings of the eyewitnesses Mr Ehrman.

[@hreader]

I've walked on water. On Solheimajokull Glacier in southern Iceland!

[@danielpaulson8838]

Christ metaphorically returns every time someone follows his path and does what he teaches. Christians wait for a physical return. 😂😂😂

[@barrywilkins1042]

Another blind "guide" leading the blind. Bart and Rabbi Tovia Singer should get together. Without Christ, there is no Salvation. Man is eternally doomed. Jeshua is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life.

[@MichaelBath-xv5bd]

It's like claiming Peter Pan The Darling Family and Tinkerbel, are historical characters...What is the matter with people ?

[@glenliesegang233]

No printing presses or newspapers, just hand-written. They also expected Jesus to return sooner, so only after it became clear His return was to be much longer, was there a need to write the accounts down. Nero lit Christians on fire in AD 64, and if Jesus died in 33, then 31 years is a very short timespan for myth creation. Reasonable people stil checked rheir facts from other reliable people before dying for their faith. And, the threat of hell was not what made them follow His followers, but the love, compassion, and integrity drew people to the Way.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"[What ? Under the holy trinity, Jesus is God. So God had to kill God to satisfy God ?]" -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@MrLightning20]

31 seconds is a short timespan for myth creation, 31 years is a LONG time for myth creations to be created, switched up, told to different groups, details of the same myth story become contradictory, and they finally decide to write down all the different contradictory details of the same myth creation. Word of mouth through the telephone game is extremely unreliable. The gospels are evidence of how this myth is was altered through the year. It’s textbook unreliability.

[@edwardking5233]

Dude, your “reasonable people …….” Is the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever read. People have died for nonsense throughout history. The average person does no deep thinking or fact checking.

[@petercollins7730]

Actually, numerous studies have shown that myth creation begins in a matter of weeks, not decades. How would "reasonable people" check the veracity of books written after virtually all of the adults present, even if known, were dead? And why is there literally no corroborating evidence for any significant event in the gospels, if they are all entirely factual? Finally, very few people "died for their faith." There was no organized persecution of christians in the first century CE, and those Nero killed were simply scapegoats - Nero needed to appease the population, and christians were hated, so he killed a few. Nothing to do with their beliefs, just expediency. If sending the overwhelming majority of all humans to eternal torture is "love, compassion, and integrity," then that describes christianity to a tee. For me, NOT sending the overwhelming majority of humans to eternal torture would be more loving and compassionate.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Dying for a beleif or faith is not uncommon or proves anything correct, all relegions have done it, even the ones you reject and 3,800 Kamikaze pilots died for their beleif in a God emporer.

[@robertrudnik8121]

The same is with Old Testament - who write it? Why there are so many insane things? Why there are so many contradictions and lack of any logic? Best regards

[@rupierichards1809]

Bart is absolutely correct about the different accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John leading up to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is he correct about the death, burial, and resurrection? If Bart can categorically identify the discrepancies , he must also acknowledge that all of the gospels are consistent about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The salvation message is not entirely based on the events that led to the resurrection but the fact that Jesus had died and was resurrected. The salvation message started after Christ was ascended. None of the apostles placed any emphasis on the things that happened before Jesus died but on His death and resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 tells what is the fundamental principle of the Gospel that the apostles preached. The resurrection message, therefore, is the core belief of all Christians. Bart is doing a fine job in finding discrepancies in the different accounts leading to the resurrection but fails to see the gospels' unanimous and unambiguous declaration of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; the premise on which Christianity stands.

[@RaymondTT]

@@rupierichards1809 I agree absolutely. While there are tensions in the texts, I think a single sequence of events can harmonize all four gospels without contradictions. But yes - Bart looks at the alleged speck in the gospels, but fails to see the shared log between them.

[@lunchmind]

Some of the contradictions are no big deal but the most serious one to me is the accounts of the thieves on either side of Jesus. Assuming the penitent thief account is accurate how did other Gospel writers miss it?That is a major doctrine in the Christian faith .So did both theives make fun of him or did one repent?

[@rupierichards1809]

@@lunchmind The Scriptures are based on different timelines. Each timeline speaks to a particular event. For example, the thief on the cross speaks to the Old Testament period (timeline) and not the New Testament church age. No one knew what actually happened saved for the fact the that Jesus forgave one of the thieves and promised him paradise. The thief was not a Christian. Christianity started after the resurrection and Jesus' ascension (a different timeline). The thief did not even have to baptize.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

Ehrman’s list of discrepancies between the Gospels are not intended to be exhaustive. There isn’t time in a short lecture for that. They’re simply a brief set of examples to demonstrate that the Gospels are inconsistent. It’s absurdly illogical of you to assume that just because Ehrman doesn’t cite a specific discrepancy, it doesn’t exist.

[@c.a.martin3029]

I think you all are missing Bart's point, there is no credible eyewitness to the resurrection. So the later written gospel writers are merely going on hearsay and oral tradition. The body of Jesus could have been stolen or placed in a different tomb since the Jews didn't petition the Romans to place a guard at the tomb until the next day. And all of these Bible stories have a high probability of being fiction anyway, and borrowed from older myths that everyone knew and told back then. Even church leader Justin Martyr wrote in his apology letter how Christianity was very similar to the other older mythological stories, he even blamed demons for knowing the future and creating these other dying and rising god stories such as Dionysus, who also turned water into wine, and died and rose again. So perhaps arguing over fiction is pointless and a waste of time?

[@rupierichards1809]

We cannot use common sense to justify God's standard

[@pawel4636]

Those god's standards include genocide, killing innocent children, rape, slavery and killing for almost any reason, to name a few. I agree, no common sense can be applied to understand it, let alone to justify it and agree with. Only humans with totally twisted morals and ethics would be able to accept such gods.

[@bellottibellotti9185]

Forty years later us not long I had perfect recollection of jfk assination 40 years later

[@williamwatson4354]

And you were alive and aware of the assassination. We don't know who wrote the Gospels. We don't know what they knew or if they were alive during the events. Big difference.

[@bellottibellotti9185]

@@williamwatson4354 HAVE YOU HAD YOUR COFFEE YET. We don't have to have specific names of who wrote them. The majority of scholars know some wrote paul around the year 60 and someone called mark also write around the same time.. My son wasn't born when kennedy was shot but i accurately told him it happened in dallas in a black cadillac with jackie by his side and governor connally in the front seat. He was taken taken to parkland memorial hospital. When he relates those facts to his children will those facts somehow become inaccurate. Before YOU CAN CORRECT ME IT WAS A 1961 Lincoln Continental . See the community will correct errors.

[@williamwatson4354]

@@bellottibellotti9185 I don't drink coffee so, no I haven't had any today. Paul never met Jesus. The Gospels were written by unknown Greek authors. We don't know who told the story of Jesus' life or death. Your son knows you and there's plenty of corroborating evidence as well as witnesses. Why didn't a single person in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion write anything about his death, resurrection or the raising of numerous saints?

[@bellottibellotti9185]

@@williamwatson4354 orrect paul didnt meet jesus but but Paul meet with peter for 15 days. (Galatians 1:18). So peter was an eye witness you informed Paul. Do you you think the gospel saying peter denied jesus 3 times was made up in to make Petyer seem more real - or is it more likely what happened was reported just as it happened

[@BeefT-Sq]

@@bellottibellotti9185 "Every step and performance of cognition must proceed in accordance with facts". -Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist

[@RaulFields-s6z]

The more I look into the reality of Jesus Christ and his message, including his resurrection, the more convinced I become of his value to society today. And I am not religious nor have I attended or been an advocate of any church for decades. I could debate Ehrman anytime anywhere on this issue. His claims are based on recycled information and are very harmful to society! Raul F. Escandon (Lt., USNR), PE, MS, MPA

[@kjlkathandjohn6061]

Too bad, Bart, old boy. The crucifixion and resurrection narratives were not written for you nor for any like you. They were only written for those who already know they are true, not to prove nor to convince anyone. They were written for Peter and Andrew, for James and John and Paul, and for me. We, who already know the truth of our Death and Resurrection, we know what to find in the scriptures, and that is definitely not proof.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"How is it possible for Christians to believe that Jesus Christ and God are one when they are so totally different". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@18dot7]

"They were only written for those who already know they are true, not to prove nor to convince anyone." Only those dumb enough to fall for it will fall for it. Idiots are okay with "some magical being did it"-the rest keeps asking questions and creates stuff such as MRI scanners and cell phones. That stuff was written for brainless people like you who are incapable of asking the right questions. "We, who already know the truth" No, you who have been fooled into believing the unbelievable. It is no virtue to believe without evidence-it is a clear sign of mental instability. You do not know how to come to truth, and I bet I can prove it! Fancy a test? GOOD! Let's go! Claim: God created a grown man by breathing onto a clod of clay. Task: Explain what method you use to assess the truthfulness of this claim. And POOF!-I bet all your toddler brain will come up with is "it is written". Poor John, fooled into an unwarranted belief, and not clever enough to see through the lies of your religion, you cannot break free from it.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

" those who already know they are true" you gave yourself away there big time and admitted blind beleif .

[@markwilson9639]

This man is wrong, bitter and unhappy. I will pray for him.

[@MathewThomasFET]

If this guy is to believed, then all the apostles are liars, they died for the lies they invented, the prophecies of the Old Testament are cooked up after the events and he is the only intelligent guy who discovered all these new fangled information. He is just running a business by spreading falsehood to those willing to gulp his nonsense and attract viewership ❗Pity him and his ilk.

[@14liljinx]

No, he is challenging the historical accuracy of the book that has been the cornerstone of Western civilisation for 2,000 years using the techniques of an historian. Christianity should be robust enough to stand up to such a challenge and, if it isn’t, then we all have the right to ask ‘why not?’

[@Wanderingsomewhere145]

Pity those that cannot effectively respond to a reasonable challenge.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

The fact you think he is the only Biblical scholar that disagrees with the Bible tells everyone about your intelligence level.

[@MathewThomasFET]

@ Polemics is no argument. Use common sense if available 😂. He is not the only one trying to make money by sensationalism. Try responding to my specific point - Did apostles, NT authors, OT prophets invent lies❓

[@MathewThomasFET]

@ You and he and others of his ilk are welcome to disagree with the Bible. But come up with sound reasoning.

[@martinzaehringer1697]

This has been Bart Ehrman's schtick for decades. Someday he is going to throw off this mortal coil and nothing he has said or written will be remembered.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Christians impress me as horrible people. This is why. Cluck, cluck.

[@SorryImSam]

Everything in this video is redundant when you begin to realise how the Holy Spirit works within us. This cries early 2000s youtube athiest and isn't really the slam dunk you think it is, it's just ego. All of this will fall by the wayside if you pray and ask for a relationship with God. I went through this same phase but there's no doubt in my mind after truly and wholeheartedly asking for God to come into my life, trying to become a better person and praying for forgiveness of my sins - everything so overwhelmingly and radically changed that if I told you my story of where I was before accepting Christ as my saviour and my life now, you wouldn't believe me. (Especially on the internet!). Anyone reading this, I promise God is good and He will change your life if you ask the Lord to come into your life with an open heart. Now, stop reading this and PRAY!

[@johnnastrom9400]

Try to debate the issue without resorting to "the Holy Spirit works within us" rhetoric.

[@RaymondTT]

​@@johnnastrom9400Very well. Check my series of comments dismantling every point he made one by one. Feel free to reply to them if you think I made a mistake.

[@GoogleIsRunByNazisGoogleIs-k7p]

"It all makes sense if you turn your brain off and believe in magic."

[@BeefT-Sq]

"As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists and only existence exists". -Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist

[@derekpierkowski7641]

Oh it's a slam dunk! It's not even a photo finish. It was straight between the goal post! A full court slapshot into the back of the net!!!! A three-pointer from half court!!!! Isn't it peculiar your GAWD has to play " hide and seek"? Why? Sounds incredibly Idiotic. If this Gawd is an INVISIBLE ENTITY, you really don't know who the hell you're worshipping.

[@norcalben2001]

People aren't "religious" because they "believe" any of it. People cling to religion because religion (or society) allows them to openly express their petty bigotry and hatred without consequence. If every word were true, it still wouldn't justify the damage religion has done through the ages and it still wouldn't give religion any rights over those who choose not to follow it. Religion thrives because everyone is afraid to challenge it.

[@dnam16]

Bart is presenting only one viewpoint. This is easily debunked by Christian scholars: The minor descrepencies are proof that theses are valid eye witness accounts and not that the gospels were copies of each other. Just like survivors argue over how the titanic sank, not that it sank. Even Bart does not deny that Christ lived and died, but only denies the diety and the resurrection. But he uses the minor variations to she doubt on the resurrection. He does not mention that it waa a common technigue in oral tradition to combine story elements or reaarange minor timelines. Bart is truly evil in his anti Jesus propoganda because he is only presenting one side that supports his book sales. But would expect ethical behavior from a former christian?

[@jerometaperman7102]

"...only denies the deity and the resurrection." Oh, is that all?

[@timg7627]

Oh wow! christian scholars confirm christianity?? Amazing 😱

[@gordonfry5195]

The purpose of this talk is to demonstrate that the Gospels are not documents considered to be reliable to historians. He is not purporting to deny the resurrection and deity in any way with these remarks.

[@greglogan7706]

@dnam, Weak! Silly!

[@EricSchenk-yo8tn]

Right those same eye witnesses who were present when Jesus and Pilate had their little tete a tete. And of course with so much revolutionary fervor in Jerusalem over the Passover, Pilate definitely took time to meet with one of the hundreds of apocalyptic preachers. And of course, since the entire point of crucifixion was to leave the body out to be picked over as carrion, Pilate would not have hesitated to allow someone to take a crucified body down after a few hours.

[@robertheintze9413]

Erhman is a deconstructed evangelical, who published the work "Jesus Interrupted"

[@shriyanthaperera7571]

It is widely known that Ehrman says different things in his academic papers vs his popular books! The former generally accepting the reliability of the gospels … the latter saying the opposite!

[@guillermocuadra1990]

1 Corinthians not only mentions the resurrection but also mentions that many eye witnesses of the resurrection are still alive among them, Paul reminds them. 20 years later? Sure, humans live longer than that, so eye witnesses were still alive at the time of writing about it. Now, to doubt that Paul was reliable it’s a different thing. But the archeological record shows no discrepancies between recorded accounts and facts.

[@danielpaulson8838]

If that's all you need to know a book is true, you must also follow the Quran.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@danielpaulson8838 That was written 600 years and contradicts the historical Jesus? No way.

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@BiblicalTrinitarian Genesis is framed on the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. Jesus is repeating sequences far downstream. Can you guess why?

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@danielpaulson8838 Wes Buff destroyed this argument in the Billy Carson debate

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@danielpaulson8838 The point is that the idea that Genesis is a copy of the Enuma Elish is a myth itself.

[@matthewmangum6320]

Humans cannot comprehend the perfect mind of a thrice Holy God.

[@peach495]

Discrepancies in the perfect word of god? Whoe'd thunk?

[@matthewmangum6320]

The LORD watches over His “WORD,” to perform it. All things are held together by the power of his WORD!

[@pathfinder1273]

@@matthewmangum6320 You are like one of those pesky little gnats that constantly fly around ones head. What I wouldnt give for some bug spray right now...

[@user-bf8ki9tc8j]

@@pathfinder1273 Name calling is a sign of childishness. Why dont you tell us why there are discrepancies and the thousands of contradictions in the bible? You doing the childish name calling is obviously you not wanting to face the facts and debate this guys facts. lol smh

[@johnbrewer2887]

Sheesh. The misinformation is astounding

[@hereigoagain5050]

LOL! This is why the Catholic Church does not encourage people to read the Bible and formulate their own opinions. Bart sounds like a former fundamentalist who started to think about what he was reading. Personally, "Died for our sins" and "salvation" tripped me up much more than textual details and authorship.

[@georgepierson4920]

You make no sense.

[@kashmohammed]

There are over 1000 gospels Why the 4 gospels?